The information on this blog about the corruption in America's courts will disgust and frighten you and propel you into a world of racketeering, greed, larceny, malicious prosecution, and outrageous disdain for due process, the Rule of Law, the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Professional Responsibility Standards, Rules and Statutes. This is the Unified Court System of New York State. You will be a victim unless you speak up and protest. by Betsy Combier

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Surge of Openings Will Allow Cuomo to Shape Judiciary

If you read the hundreds of cases filed in the Courts of New York State, including mine, you will see that there is evidence that the State itself, now represented by Eric Schneiderman and Andrew Cuomo, both lawyers who won on grounds of "fairness, stopping the corruption in politics", etc., etc., are doing anything but that. Andrew Cuomo, Eric Schneiderman, and Jonathan Lippman have the Unified Court System in their grasp, and I wish anyone who goes against their interests good luck. You will need it.Surge of Openings Will Allow Cuomo to Shape Judiciary

ALBANY - In his first 10 months in office, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo has had scant chance to appoint judges or to indicate what he is looking for in judicial candidates and how he will approach the process.

That is about to change, in a big way.

On Dec. 1, when Presiding Justice A. Gail Prudenti of the Appellate Division, Second Department (See Profile), becomes the state's chief administrative judge, Mr. Cuomo will have an opportunity to name the leader of the largest and busiest appellate court in New York.

A month later, when Third Department Presiding Justice Anthony V. Cardona (See Profile) retires, Mr. Cuomo will select the top judge on the Albany-based panel that, because of its location in the capital, decides cases of crucial interest to the administration.

"The Third Department gets all the big government cases and whoever is sitting in that seat can do a lot to help or impede what the governor wants to do," according to an attorney involved in the selection process.

And in the meantime, the Democratic governor can fill two other Appellate Division positions in the First Department, one in the Second Department and another in the Fourth. In addition, there is a Supreme Court vacancy in the Tenth Judicial District—Nassau and Suffolk counties—and three Court of Claims posts available for gubernatorial appointment.

"He will show us, with the quality of these appointments, how much importance he puts on the judiciary, how much care and attention he uses in addressing this," said Mark H. Alcott, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and a former president of the New York State Bar Association. "This will be eagerly watched. He is a man who could be governor for a long time. The bench and the bar will be quite interested."

The Appellate Division positions, and in particular the two presiding justice spots, are garnering considerable speculation in the legal community. With relatively few cases ever getting to the Court of Appeals, the appellate departments often issue the last word on matters of legal significance.

Additionally, since the four presiding justices and Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman make up the policy-making administrative board of the courts, the governor's appointees could significantly impact both the functioning of the courts and the practice of law.

Only elected Supreme Court justices, not acting justices, are eligible for appointment to the Appellate Division.

Candidates are evaluated by screening panels in the four departments and required to fill out a 45-page questionnaire delving into matters as diverse as their bar admissions to whether they have outstanding parking tickets. The governor must choose among those found qualified by the screening panels.

In the Third Department, four current members of the court have applied for the presiding justice position, according to sources close to the process. They are Acting Presiding Justice Thomas E. Mercure (See Profile), a Republican, and Justices Karen K. Peters (See Profile), Leslie E. Stein (See Profile) and John C. Egan Jr. (See Profile), all Democrats.

Justice Mercure, who has served as acting presiding justice most of this year because Justice Cardona is ill, is highly regarded among the judges and staff of the Third Department.

One official involved in the selection process suggested it would make sense for the Democratic governor to appoint the Republican judge, especially since Justice Mercure faces mandatory retirement in two years.

"Politically, putting Tom [Mercure] on would be a great move for the governor," said a member of one of the judicial screening panels. "He [Mr. Cuomo] looks bipartisan, gets credit for promoting the best person and then gets to make another appointment in two years when he is running for re-election."

A member of another screening panel also said Mr. Cuomo would earn political credit, as well as bolster his credibility with the legal profession, by appointing Justice Mercure. The governor's father, former Governor Mario M. Cuomo, often appointed Republican judges.

"Mercure is the obvious choice and it would be an interesting choice by the governor," the committee member said. "His dad appointed a bunch of Republicans and it would show that judicial appointments are made on merit rather than pure politics. Mercure is a good, good judge and a good, good person and I just get the sense that everyone is very happy with what he has done."

But the attorney also speculated that the governor may feel pressure to appoint a woman for either the Second or Third Department presiding judgeship.

"With Gail Prudenti stepping down, I don't think the governor can afford to have five men on the administrative board," the screening committee member said.

Another screening committee member said Second Department Justice Cheryl E. Chambers (See Profile) is a "real strong candidate for" presiding justice in Brooklyn.

The attorney said the retirement of Justice Cardona alone will impact the operation of the administrative board, even though he was only one of five.

"The PJs [presiding justices] are really the big story because the PJ can make a big impact not only on their department, but on statewide policy," a screening committee member said. "Tony [Cardona] was a force on that administrative board. When he took positions, none of the other judges would buck him. Tony was very powerful, but fairly conservative in not wanting to make change, particularly changes that affected lawyers."

Court of Appeals Bench

Observers said they will be closely monitoring Mr. Cuomo's appellate division selections, in part because they may provide some insight into what he will be looking for when he appoints Court of Appeals judges.

Mr. Cuomo will have the opportunity to appoint two Court of Appeals judges his first term, and if he serves a second term he could become only the second governor to appoint all seven judges of the high court: The first was his father.

Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, the first Hispanic judge on the Court and the last remaining appointee of former Governor Cuomo, faces mandatory retirement at the end of 2012.

The Ciparick seat will be the first subject to new operating rules adopted by the Commission on Judicial Nomination, which screens candidates for the Court.

Under the revised rules, the commission has an "explicit commitment to diversity" and must provide the governor with much more detail than in the past.

"What he does with Ciparick's seat will really be a signal," according to one observer involved in the process. "That will say a lot about what he is looking for in a judge. He will also be under a lot of pressure to appoint a Hispanic, and there are already Latino judges that are lining up."

In November 2014, as Mr. Cuomo's first term comes to an end, Judge Victoria A. Graffeo's term expires. Judge Graffeo, who could seek re-appointment, was elevated to the bench by Republican Governor George E. Pataki.

On the first day of what would be Mr. Cuomo's second term, two more Court of Appeals seats, those held by Robert S. Smith and Theodore T. Jones, will open. Both Judge Smith, a Republican appointee of Mr. Pataki, and Judge Jones, a Democratic appointee of Governor Eliot Spitzer, will be subject to mandatory retirement and cannot seek re-appointment. Judge Jones is the only black judge on the Court.

Also in a second term, Mr. Cuomo would appoint a new chief judge at the end of 2015 when Judge Lippman turns 70, the mandatory retirement age. He will also have an opportunity to replace two Pataki appointees: Eugene F. Pigott Jr., who turns 70 in 2016 and must step down at the end of that year; and Susan Phillips Read, whose 14-year-term expires at the end of 2017.

Different governors have gone about naming Court of Appeals judges in different ways.

Until 1977, Court of Appeals judges were elected, so the first governor with the power to appoint high court judges was the late Hugh L. Carey.

Mr. Carey appointed three Democrats, but two of them had previously been elected to the Court. He elevated Lawrence Cooke to chief judge, appointed Bernard Meyer to the Court and appointed Matthew Jasen to a second term.

Mario Cuomo, who had clerked at the Court early in his career and has always professed great respect for the institution, left a perfectly balanced Court with three Democrats, three Republicans and an independent.

Mario Cuomo's successors appointed only members of their own political party.

Andrew Cuomo has yet to develop a track record on judicial appointments, and with the several Court of Appeals openings coming up in the next few years observers are eagerly awaiting his first batch of appointments to the Appellate Division and looking for a hint of what he will look for in judicial candidates and the factors, judicial as well as political, that will come into play.

"His dad had an open philosophy," according to an attorney with ties to the current Cuomo administration. "Andrew is much more politically focused. He hasn't spent the time his dad did practicing law so his focus is more from a political perspective than a legal one. He obviously understands the importance of the Court to his agenda."

Mr. Alcott, the former state bar president, said the potential for Mr. Cuomo to "remake the Court of Appeals in his image" is obviously "huge."

"Mario Cuomo had a great deal of reverence for the Court," Mr. Alcott said. "He clerked at the Court and was a practicing lawyer, and the Court of Appeals was very important to him. With Andrew, it is really not known. The lower court appointments might begin to give us a hint of what he is looking for."

"The Governor will recruit and screen the best and the brightest to serve New Yorkers as part of the judiciary," said spokesman Joshua Vlasto.

Sunny Shue, died Saturday June 26, 2010. Video that Sunny did on April 9 2010, asking for protection from Judge Joseph Golia. Wednesday...

September 2, 2009 Hearing With Senator John Sampson on Judicial Accountability in New York State

We went to a Hearing with Senator John Sampson on September 24, 2009 on the New York Judicial Syatem. A few people were able to speak, and many others signed up to speak at a later date...that Sampson never scheduled.

First published in print: Monday, January 11, 2010
Here we thought that the first order of business this year for state Senate Democratic leader John Sampson would be to help regain that institution's credibility by passing radical ethics reforms.

The need for them would seem to be brutally obvious, in the wake of the conviction of former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno on federal corruption charges and Governor Paterson's calls for requiring state officials members to disclose their outside income. First, though, Mr. Sampson has joined a large Manhattan law firm where one of the founding partners is on the board of the state Trial Lawyers Association.
That's right. Mr. Sampson now works not only for the people of New York, but also for the firm of Belluck & Fox, according to a New York Post report.

His salary in the former position is a matter of public record, of course -- $88,500. His salary in his new job, however, is something Mr. Sampson isn't about to disclose.

Just as New Yorkers need to learn more about legislators' outside interests, Mr. Sampson offers them less.

Imagine, then, what people might think if this is one more year when the Legislature fails to pass ethics laws. Or if it does, only a watered down version of what's need to clean up an institution where criminal indictments and convictions have become too commonplace?

What were Mr. Sampson's priorities, they might wonder -- transparency in government, or shielding from both his own finances and Belluch & Fox's clients?

The same questions might be asked as well of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who holds a position of counsel to another Manhattan law firm, Weitz & Luxenberg. Little is known by the public about that arrangement, too, thanks to the alarmingly inadequate financial disclosure requirements for legislators that Mr. Silver seems to think are entirely adequate. We know he works for that particular firm, one of the largest tort law firms in New York, but we don't know what the nature of his work is, or on whose behalf he does it.

That will become all the more relevant in the event someone else in the Legislature tries to push for rewriting the state's medical malpractice laws or otherwise changing tort laws this session. Two of the most powerful people in state government work for law firms closely associated with the leading opponent of such legislation, namely the Trial Lawyers Association.

In Mr. Silver's case, he rather famously said of his legal work a half-dozen years ago, "I don't think it's a conflict. How many times do you want to hear this?"

In Mr. Sampson's case, the word comes from his office that his outside work won't interfere with his official duties.

Not exactly endorsements of ethics reform, are they?

THE ISSUE:

The state Senate Democratic leader has another job, too, not that he wants to talk about it.

THE STAKES:

When ethics reform is a major issue, how serious is he about stronger financial disclosure requirements?

Electronic Libraries and FOIA Links

Accountability is the Key

Westchester Guardian TV

Loading...

Click picture to view website

Victims-of-Law

Who is a Victim-of-Law?Victims-of-Law are persons who have been subjected to tyrannical or arbitrary rulings or edicts in violation of constitutional and civil rights under the democratic maxim reminiscent of our Republic -- the "Rule of Law"

The victims of unethical and corrupt lawyers, judges and employees of the state and federal judiciary demand accountability from those who abuse the power of office while they remain absolutely immune. The media as well as the legislative and executive branches of government traditionally ignore these abuses. The judicial branch itself hurls insults at the victim claiming they are nothing more than a 'disgruntled litigant' while ignoring substantive allegations.

It is essential to empower the victims of legal abuses. Our strength is in our numbers thus the more people that demand their constitutional and civil rights the quicker they will be attained.

What most people do not comprehend is that judges are immune from civil lawsuits. If a judge unlawfully imprisoned someone or maliciously denied due process in a case that cost a litigant millions of dollars, it doesn't matter. There is no redress for the aggrieved person.

The emotional and physical health problems inherent in these abuses are now coming to light but the judicial branches throughout our country continue to avoid or deliberately ignore what they have helped to create.

This website hopes to publish documented proof of many of the deliberate violations of the 'rule of law, the doctrine upon which our Constitutional Republic is based.

This website hopes to publish documented proof of many of the deliberate violations of the 'rule of law, the doctrine upon which our Constitutional Republic is based.

What is the "Rule of Law"? Equality and the Law

The right to equality before the law, or equal protection of the law as it is often phrased, is fundamental to any just and democratic society. Whether rich or poor, ethnic majority or religious minority, political ally of the state or opponent--all are entitled to equal protection before the law.

The democratic state cannot guarantee that life will treat everyone equally, and it has no responsibility to do so. However, writes constitutional law expert John P. Frank, "Under no circumstances should the state impose additional inequalities; it should be required to deal evenly and equally with all of its people."

No one is above the law, which is, after all, the creation of the people, not something imposed upon them. The citizens of a democracy submit to the law because they recognize that, however indirectly, they are submitting to themselves as makers of the law. When laws are established by the people who then have to obey them, both law and democracy are served.

The Supreme CourtThe Framers considered the rule of law essential to the safekeeping of social order and civil liberties. The rule of law holds that if our relationships with each other and with the state are governed by a set of rules, rather than by a group of individuals, we are less likely to fall victim to authoritarian rule. The rule of law calls for both individuals and the government to submit to the law's supremacy. By precluding both the individual and the state from transcending the supreme law of the land, the Framers constructed another protective layer over individual rights and liberties. --Reprinted from U.S. Dept. of State

Judicial Immunity is AbsoluteIn an unprecedented degree of 'abuse of power' judges decreed themselves absolutely immune from civil suit when they are "acting maliciously and corruptly." In 1996 the 104th Congress passed the Federal Courts Improvement Act amending the Civil Rights statute to give further immunities to malicious and corrupt judges.

Sec. 309. Prohibition against awards of costs, including attorney's fees, and injunctive relief against a judicial officer.28 USC 2412 note.>> for Costs.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no judicial officer shall be held liable for any costs, including attorney's fees, in any action brought against such officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer's jurisdiction.(b) Proceedings in Vindication of Civil Rights.--Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end thereof "except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer's jurisdiction".

(c) Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights.--Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended by inserting before the period at the end of the first sentence: ``, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable''.

Advocate for truth and An End To Judicial Immunity

About Betsy Combier

Reporter, paralegal, advocate,I will investigate, search on the internet and in all data bases for information that will help a person in need of resolution to a problem.I believe in substantive and procedural due process for all individuals, groups and organizations and trademarked the term "e-accountability" to describe the purpose of my work. I am the parent of four daughters.

National Forum on Judicial Accountability Badge

Google+ Badge

Notable Events Outside New York State

Search This Blog

Who is John Libecci?

On Sunday, August 16, 2009, a friend of a friend called me at approximately 2:10PM, a Mr. John Libecci. Mr. Libecci is, I understand, a private investigator who knows a friend of mine socially. I asked whether he could help me find out some information involving my federal court case filed in United States District court on June 8, 2009 involving the Surrogate Court and my mother's Will. After I told him about the property being taken by the court, he told me that the court never takes property without a reason; after I told him that the Will was never probated since I filed the Will (of my mom) on March 17, 1998), Mr. Libecci told me that "obviously the Will was not done right", and said that he worked for the Courts and the Judges. He would not tell me what he did for the Court and the judges, then hung up. If anyone has information about Mr. John Libecci please email me at betsy@parentadvocates.org. You may send me any information anonymously.